If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That's why I suggested the oring type detents. I would imagine it should be easier to machine. A groove on each side of the front frame screw in the rail and matching grooves in the body.

oring detents SUCK

ICD B2K4s used oring detents and even with the body being milled for just a quarter of the oring showing through, with the bolt having relief cuts in it, and the detent would maybe last 2 cases, if that. the bolt would compress the oring either shear off the oring(which were 010 urethane orings) or just grab enough of them and get shot out. ICD on the PM which replaced the B2K4, went to a ball and spring that is the same as Freestyle, Dye DMs and such. as a retrofit, i generally stuff 1 or 2 finger detents in the same hole in order to not have to deal with the orings in any of my B2K4s, and this is from a diehard B2K guy. if anything, i would rather see the bodies threaded for cocker detents or even Mini or Axe detents and forget the hole thing. i would like to see progress forward and not taking a step back.

the comparisons with other guns do not fly. pumps don't shoot as fast as a semi and semis can't RT with the likes of an Xvalve being pumped with 1100psi from a SHP reg. so a one baller pump is worlds apart from a Xvalve putting 20bps out. so just forget that. what i would like to see is a guinea pig put a detent together that has a finger detent and even an oring detent and see how it is after a case, or 2 case, or 5 cases. that's the biggest thing. the reason for the possible mod is to make things better not to supplement a lack of supplies.

I'm actually interested in it mainly for use in a pump, so changing out a couple of O-rings or a detent every case or two wouldn't bother me. For this particular build, I would love to have a detentless Ripper body.

I don't necessarily think that ROF has anything to do with it. It has more to do with the ability of the orings to keep a modern loader of choice from pushing a ball past the orings. If the slot on the rail was deep enough so that the oring had the ability to lower out of the way of the bolt as it slides over I would think it will help with the life expectancy of the orings.

Even if you can only get 2-5 cases out of the orings I see that as an upgrade. Orings cost pennies so the cost of replacing one is very little. If you shoot out a regular detent you lost $10-20. Spyder detents are in the $1-3 range depending on where you get them. It will be the same amount of work to replace one of them as it would an oring. Personally I will go with the $.05 oring over the other options.

I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

I'm actually interested in it mainly for use in a pump, so changing out a couple of O-rings or a detent every case or two wouldn't bother me. For this particular build, I would love to have a detentless Ripper body.

Originally Posted by lancecst

I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

would either of you mind PM'ing XMT about making these for yourselves to test with me?

I switched from Spyder detents like Doc's adapter uses to Ego detents because I have more of them, and I like them a little better.

I think dual opposing finger detents are the way to go. One finger detent alone is not enough for small paint unless you use a finger which is unusually large and obtrusive.

Your setup is not completely opposing, so you'll have to take that into consideration. I think you are also precluding the possibility of a warp fed body as well. Might interfere with pump mag installation too; I'd have to look at the milling again.

All of these are reasons why I built this all into my mag2cocker adapter.

This is what I was thinking the whole time reading this thread. Take away the nubbins and the weight, and the speed of stripping out a twist lock barrel wins over cocker threads. Only problem then becomes availability, as a lot of manufacturers already fail to make TL barrels.

But making ULE bodies designed for TL barrels and without detent holes, and then integrating a lightweight aluminum version of the TL-cocker adapter is feasible and a more cost effective way of doing this.

My aluminum twist lock freak is pretty light. I will use a different barrel when I mill and prototype retrofitting 2 spyder finger detents in a tl barrel though. I love my TL. Detents are there only downfall to me.

Spyder detents are already available in different hardness. Color coded depending on vendor.

Originally Posted by blackdeath1k

GOAT. What does an ego detent look like? Can't say I've seen that style. Thought most all newer stuff went to ball detents.

They look like Spyder detents, but:

Kind of an oval base

Not as tall (yet another reason why I doubled up on them)

"Finger" portion is thicker at the base

Anyways, I think one of the technical issues moving to an aluminum twistlock body is going to surprise you guys:

It’s the front grip frame screw.

On a classic steel body, the front screw is a nice solid steel weld nut solidly welded to the body.

On the ULE body, when they did away with the TL, I think that gave the body more meat (taking away from the chamber that used to belong to the barrel) on the underside for the threaded insert where the screw goes. And the aluminum body badly needs it because, well, aluminum isn’t as hard as steel. (Imagine me cringing every time I struck that rusted front grip frame screw with the hammer, from the other thread.)

I would not trust a classic-spec insert to survive on an aluminum body, especially considering how abusive some of you are with your equipment.

Possible solution is to “rob from Peter to pay Paul” -- steal some meat from the rail area where it’s not really needed, and allow the body to be thicker in that area.

(Obvious solution is to stick with steel bodies of course. Hence some of my design decisions.)

Would it be less operations though. I said "easier" thinking it would be less operations. It probably isn't the best choice of words.

Not if you had to do the rail too.
A spot, drill, tap operation like this is pretty simple. In reality I would say that the o-ring operation might be more complex but that would depend on the type of cnc machine it's being done on and the type of setup it was. Small tooling like what would be required to do the oring milling can't be pushed to hard, I would wager that the spot/drilling/tapping operation (even with the tool changes) would be a faster operation than the single tool machining op for the oring.

But even with that said it does not make an argument for whether or not it's a viable idea or not (which was my original point ). Really I would say it boils down to testing (time/money/effort), reliability and customer support.

(Obvious solution is to stick with steel bodies of course. Hence some of my design decisions.)

We seem to be on the same page with where to start with this idea. But since this would require a new holeless body anyway, why not alleviate the concern of the amount of thin aluminum on a TL styled ULE body and just make it a unibody/rail?

How about a body with the hidden eye milling and using detents like proto rail?

Detents used on the evil m's are just a ball and spring. Spring is held in place by milling pocket in the eye cover. I would think making a cover with a pocket inside that would be flush with the body would be easy to do. Spring and ball would also be around for years no worries about not finding in stock.

I don't necessarily think that ROF has anything to do with it. It has more to do with the ability of the orings to keep a modern loader of choice from pushing a ball past the orings. If the slot on the rail was deep enough so that the oring had the ability to lower out of the way of the bolt as it slides over I would think it will help with the life expectancy of the orings.

Even if you can only get 2-5 cases out of the orings I see that as an upgrade. Orings cost pennies so the cost of replacing one is very little. If you shoot out a regular detent you lost $10-20. Spyder detents are in the $1-3 range depending on where you get them. It will be the same amount of work to replace one of them as it would an oring. Personally I will go with the $.05 oring over the other options.

I have asked somebody about getting it done and I will gladly test it out. If it doesn't work then I'm out the money for the milling. I can live with the risk. Part of the reason for the mod is aesthitics, part upgrade, and part the dwindling supply of parts. Angel detents will eventually run out, orings will always be around.

been there done that. oring detents do not hold up against forcefeed loaders. even putting some macroline tubing in the detent(so that the oring surrounds the macroline), does not last. as much as it doesn't cost all that much, after how many games of tearing down your gun to put in a new set orings would that get old?

again, i am all for hidden detents, but people, you are jumping too quickly here. though the ideas are good and there is a basis(costs, availability of current detents, esthetics), we are not thinking this through. the biggest issue of doing something this big(total redesigning of the ULE body) is that people will have to compromise. to a point, you have to make a list of what you want: finger detents, warpfeed accessibility, ease of use. then weigh it against: costs of designing, costs of prototyping, costs of manufacturing. yes, i'm not talking about the new AGD ULE body, but what are we talking about? will this only be for future PL bodies?

there is a lot to deal with here. we don't know how long a finger detent will last in a mag. most adapters like Doc's TL are used by people with classic valves whether its in pump form or semi. like i said before, to what effect a finger detent will have on a high RoF mag bolt. what depths do we need to have on that detent? where can you put them on the body?

hell, i say get a pool of money of all the people that want them, commission a slug type body where you can test the theory with placement and depth and go from there. that way you can prove that it can work, that you can foresee any possible problems(like being associated with the rail, and the various screw holes) and put to rest any questions with hard evidence.

We seem to be on the same page with where to start with this idea. But since this would require a new holeless body anyway, why not alleviate the concern of the amount of thin aluminum on a TL styled ULE body and just make it a unibody/rail?

Edit: might make it hard to use the TL adapter that way...

A rail+body for TL purposes is probably more doable than you think. And it's also kind of more logical in the grander scheme of things.

Another difference between a ULE and a Classic body is the fact that the front grip frame screw is a blind hole vs. through-hole...

... so the obvious answer there would be to go back to a twist-lock adapter, but instead of using the classic twist-lock pin, just make the threaded hole a through-hole and use a longer frame screw to lock the adapter in. I uh... accidentally discovered this "feature" when making mine; something I'm going to build into my next iteration of the mag2cocker adapter.

Incidentally, in case nobody has noticed -- I see pretty much zero reason why the mag2cocker adapter should be made out of metal.

But a single rail+body presents another challenge: no through-holes for foregrip mounting. You have to do what PTP did with the Micromag, or go sideways with the RT style things, or put a dovetail or picattiny into the rail.

As far as finger detents, I think they will work fine in a mag -- just as well as in an Ego. The problem with the finger detents is when you try to use them with closed bolt markers, or markers that normally sit at rest with the bolts forward.

again, i am all for hidden detents, but people, you are jumping too quickly here. though the ideas are good and there is a basis(costs, availability of current detents, esthetics), we are not thinking this through. the biggest issue of doing something this big(total redesigning of the ULE body) is that people will have to compromise. to a point, you have to make a list of what you want: finger detents, warpfeed accessibility, ease of use. then weigh it against: costs of designing, costs of prototyping, costs of manufacturing. yes, i'm not talking about the new AGD ULE body, but what are we talking about? will this only be for future PL bodies?

I can't speak for the OP but I see this for the nice milled bodies, Ripper, Phoenix, Shockwave and the such. That way the smooth lines of the marker aren't interupted by detents sticking out.

I seeing it being an option for people, not a necessity. If you want regular detents more power to you. If you want a clean look thats great as well. I don't think that the OP was saying that all ULE bodies should have a new detent system. I think he is looking for options for those of use that want something different.

Originally Posted by Nobody

been there done that. oring detents do not hold up against forcefeed loaders. even putting some macroline tubing in the detent(so that the oring surrounds the macroline), does not last. as much as it doesn't cost all that much, after how many games of tearing down your gun to put in a new set orings would that get old?

I haven't heard of people having issues with the new T2s. Plenty of people are using Rotors or other force feed loaders on them without issue.